Milliken & Co. v. Gardner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common. Pleas of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit which came into court by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in which Robert Gardner was plaintiff, and Samuel Milliken, William Coyne, and Isaac Hamnet, partners doing business as Samuel Milliken & Co., were defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common. Pleas of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit which came into court by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in which Robert Gardner was plaintiff, and Samuel Milliken, William Coyne, and Isaac Hamnet, partners doing business as Samuel Milliken & Co., were defendants. The suit was on a due-bill given by defendants to the plaintiff under the following circumstances :— Milliken & Co. were boat-builders, who, having a number of contracts to fill, agreed with a company of practical boat-builders, who formed a partnership amongst themselves, of which…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Woodward, J.
The very meagre statement of the case does not inform us who the partners of Gardner were, nor how many, but we are told that he was one of a firm — that his firm agreed with Milliken & Co. to build boats for them, and that while the work was going on each one of Gardner’s firm was to draw $2 a day for present use, to be accounted for in final settlement. The due-bill sued on in this case was given to Gardner in pursuance of this arrangement.
The claim of the plaintiff, therefore, was his own individual right to receive so much money from…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mintz v. Tri-County Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Schalcher v. BergdollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Union National Bank v. Cannonsburgh Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Rom v. Bolton, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1923